Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, pretty much everything since the Republican party is the mainstream conservative political party in the US.

That the republican party "fights" the liberal agenda hardly makes them conservative.

I will say though, the republican side has many more vocal very religious (nuts) it seems, but this doesn't make it a "conservative philosophy/ ideal". A conservative political position doesn't necessarily require religion to be a part.

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Where can I find this "conservative side" you are speaking of?

The evangelicals and "religious right" in general. They are very significant voting block in the Republican party and the Republicans intentionally cater to such groups in their platform and legislative endeavors.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

That the republican party "fights" the liberal agenda hardly makes them conservative.

But the Republican party having their own conservative agenda makes them conservative.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

I will say though, the republican side has many more vocal very religious (nuts) it seems, but this doesn't make it a "conservative philosophy/ ideal". A conservative political position doesn't necessarily require religion to be a part.

Not by definition. But in the US, conservatives are more religious than liberals (statistics will bear this out) and are generally more interested in inserting Christianity into public life including governmental functions.

For example, there's a recent controversy on whether Christian religious monuments, like a plaque of the ten commandments, should be placed in front of a courthouse on public lands. The dividing line for and against this is pretty much a conservative/liberal divide. It doesn't mean that every single conservative is for keeping it there but if a poll were taken, it would clearly show that there is much more support from conservatives to keep it there.

Not by definition. But in the US, conservatives are more religious than liberals (statistics will bear this out) and are generally more interested in inserting Christianity into public life including governmental functions.

For example, there's a recent controversy on whether Christian religious monuments, like a plaque of the ten commandments, should be placed in front of a courthouse on public lands. The dividing line for and against this is pretty much a conservative/liberal divide. It doesn't mean that every single conservative is for keeping it there but if a poll were taken, it would clearly show that there is much more support from conservatives to keep it there.

Here, you may be correct, but I would still say " the religious side" would in general support such a thing. I know plenty of liberals that religion trumps their politics.

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

Not in its entirety but they are significant part of conservative politics in America. They have a direct influence on the Republican platform and the legal issues that Republicans forward.

And more to the point, conservatives significantly support infringing on the separation of church and state than liberals do. It doesn't mean that every single conservative is for it but as a general statement, conservatives have less respect for the separation than liberals do.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Here, you may be correct, but I would still say " the religious side" would in general support such a thing. I know plenty of liberals that religion trumps their politics.

In a way that seeks to infringe on the separation of church and state? Please give me an example of this. And it should be something fairly significant (like the fight over keeping religious monuments on government land is significant).

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

Originally Posted by mican333

First off, thanks for consenting to the delete.

But I have to ask. Don't you agree that the posts are spam? Assuming you agree, then I have to think that my decision to delete these posts in accordance with the rules would be seen as a rationale decision. So I don't see how emotion plays into it.

If it was your decision, would you decide differently?

Thanks for the compliment!

Perhaps, but you were just giving your opinion and I was kinda like "ok", now what?

This plays out frequently here it seems. People get frustrated and say things they wouldn't under calmer times...I'm not picking on you per se. I make mistakes too and not long enough ago.
I just haven't seen the "delete" part much I guess.

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

Perhaps, but you were just giving your opinion and I was kinda like "ok", now what?

But given your next statement, it looked like you were just saying "sez you", which does not forward the debate.

And there's a lot to challenge in my post. I said:

"Not in its entirety but they are significant part of conservative politics in America. They have a direct influence on the Republican platform and the legal issues that Republicans forward.

And more to the point, conservatives significantly support infringing on the separation of church and state than liberals do. It doesn't mean that every single conservative is for it but as a general statement, conservatives have less respect for the separation than liberals do."

You can disagree with about any of the stuff I say there. You can challenge me on the influence of the religious right. You can challenge me on conservatives having less respect for separation.

And of course maybe you don't disagree with any of this. Then the response would be general agreement, not just say it's my opinion.

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

But given your next statement, it looked like you were just saying "sez you", which does not forward the debate.

And there's a lot to challenge in my post. I said:

"Not in its entirety but they are significant part of conservative politics in America. They have a direct influence on the Republican platform and the legal issues that Republicans forward.

And more to the point, conservatives significantly support infringing on the separation of church and state than liberals do. It doesn't mean that every single conservative is for it but as a general statement, conservatives have less respect for the separation than liberals do."

You can disagree with about any of the stuff I say there. You can challenge me on the influence of the religious right. You can challenge me on conservatives having less respect for separation.

And of course maybe you don't disagree with any of this. Then the response would be general agreement, not just say it's my opinion.

And the far left people (wackos as apposed to the far right wackos) wack the constitution as well. You are just more concerned with the religious aspects. A pro life person would say the far left is killing innocent life (I know, I know a "fetus").

Hmmm. Somebody not religious might see the ten commandments at a public bldg. vs an innocent life dies because of the whim of it's mother....

Look.
I am not here to defend republicans. They suck.
I am not here to defend democrats. They suck.

Between the two, we went from the most prosperous nation, to the most indebted (among other important milestones ie: life expectancy, schooling, etc...).

Back to the Op:
money and "power" are the only reasons this exemption still exists....
(kinda like the same reasons people like Goldman Sachs and Hilary have never "done anything prosecutable")

Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

And the far left people (wackos as apposed to the far right wackos) wack the constitution as well. You are just more concerned with the religious aspects. A pro life person would say the far left is killing innocent life (I know, I know a "fetus").

But that's not a good example of the left not respecting the constitution. Currently the fetus has no constitutional rights and therefore abortion technically does not violate anyone's constitutional rights.

I know one can argue that the fetus should have such rights but that doesn't change the fact that it currently doesn't and therefore under current law, it's not a violation of rights.

Can you give me an example of the left actually violating constitutional rights?

And I thought you didn't want to debate abortion further so that's another reason it's not a good example.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Back to the Op:
money and "power" are the only reasons this exemption still exists....
(kinda like the same reasons people like Goldman Sachs and Hilary have never "done anything prosecutable")